consensus conferences on genetically ... conferences on genetically modified food in norway by alf...

CONSENSUS CONFERENCES ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IN NORWAY

by Alf J. Mørkrid

Executive Summary

The report begins by describing the decision-making culture and traditions of public consultationand public involvement in Norway, which have traditionally been stronger at the municipal level. It alsoprovides an overview of the legislative framework and institutions for public involvement in policy-making. Norway’s long-established “Ombudsman” institution is described as an important means forcitizens seeking ex post redress – but as having limited impact on the degree of citizen involvement inthe decision-making process. The potential role of new information and communication technologies(ICTs) is reviewed in the light of Norway’s “Electronic Government Action Plan” and high levels of publicaccess to Internet in homes, at work, in schools and public libraries.

The report goes on to review the introduction and evolution of the use of consensus conferences inNorway, as well as their evaluation. The specific case of the 1996 consensus conference on geneticallymodified food is described in terms of its organisation, process and results. The key findings of theindependent evaluation report on the consensus conference, issued in 1997, are presented and theevaluation criteria reviewed. A follow-up consensus conference, involving the same laymen’s panel, washeld in November 2000 to summarise research developments since 1996 and to discuss theestablishment of a moratorium on genetically modified food. The case study concludes with an accountof the human and financial resources dedicated to the 1996 and 2000 consensus conferences and anassessment of their relative impact on decision-making.

The advantages and disadvantages of using consensus conferences as a means of engaging citizensin policy-making are weighed up. Among the benefits cited are a significant contribution to raising publicawareness about the issue of genetically modified food through media coverage of the 1996 and 2000consensus conferences, as well as their value as a pilot project for the introduction of the consensusconference instrument into Norwegian policy-making. Several drawbacks are also identified, notably inthe costs associated with preparing and holding consensus conferences; the potential influence of thefacilitator and the fact that an emphasis on reaching consensus may favour members of the panel whoalready hold strong views on the issue. Finally, the use of laymen’s panels cannot be regarded as asubstitute for established democratic decision-making processes, but rather as a supplement to them.

The report concludes by setting out future perspectives and challenges to strengtheninggovernment-citizen connections and introducing novel forms of public consultation in decision-makingalongside traditional processes in Norway. It foresees that the use of consultation and the activeinvolvement of citizens will increase and spread into new policy areas over the next 5 to 10 years. Duringthis period, Internet-based technology will also dramatically change the possibility of, and practicalmeans for, involving citizens. This will in turn raise questions on how such developments affect theability of different groups in society to participate in public policy-making.

The case study was submitted to the Secretariat in 2000 and covers events up to that date.

223

© OECD 2001

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to present and analyse mechanisms regarding information,consultation and participation of citizens in policy-making in Norway, in connection with the PUMAactivity on “Strengthening Government-Citizen Connections.” The last part of the report is dedicated tothe presentation of experiences from the consensus conference on genetically modified food in 1996and the follow-up conference of November 2000.

The assignment was carried out under the guidance of the Norwegian Ministry of Labour andGovernment Administration.

The work was conducted both as a desk study of published documents and by collecting newinformation. In drafting the case study, the following sources of information have been used:

– Norway’s response to the OECD 1999 surveys on “Strengthening Government-CitizenConnections”54.

– Reports and information produced by several Norwegian ministries.

– Material from the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities.

– Evaluation report on the 1996 consensus conference on genetically modified food (NIFU, 1997).

– Studies of media clips.

– Internet data search.

– Interviews with key players (e.g. representatives of the consensus conference secretariat).

Background of the Norwegian Political System

This section will briefly describe the decision-making culture and traditions of public consultationand public involvement in Norway as well as the sharing of responsibilities between levels ofadministration. The Norwegian political system is generally based on strong participation from thelocal/municipal level in the decision-making process, although changes have been observed as a resultof stronger economic influence and control from central government in recent years.

Figure 10. Instruments for public participation in different levels of government in Norway

Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making

224

© OECD 2001

System level

Central governmentlevel

The Public Administration ActFreedom of Information ActParliamentary Report LocalGovernment ActGender Equality ActPlanning and Building Act

Parliamentary Ombudsman ConsumerCouncil/Consumer OmbudsmanOmbudsman for ChildrenEqual Status OmbudsmanCouncil of the ElderlyBiotechnology Advisory BoardYouth Forum for DemocracyThe Norwegian Commission on Human ValuesCo-operation with user- and next-of-kin organisations

People's HearingsSchool Boards (pupils, parents)Councils for the ElderlyLocal advisory referendumsAdvisory committeesCitizen and consumer surveys“Open hour” or “The Mayor's Bench”

Local governmentlevel

Norway has a participatory democracy which, especially after 1945, has been built on the strong roleplayed by the municipal level of administration. Over the last 10 years there has been a developmenttowards greater popular participation in the decision-making processes both through local elections andlocal bodies such as liaison committees, pupil and parent councils.

Public consultation as such has not historically had a strong formal position in the Norwegianpolitical tradition at the central government level, although there is a growing interest in this area linkedto the principles of information policy and a growing user orientation.

Similar to many other OECD Member countries, participation in the electoral process in Norwayseems to be weakening as indicated by:

– Steadily falling membership in Norwegian political parties.

– Falling voter turnout, especially in local elections.

As a result of these trends, both the Government and the political sphere in general recognise theneed to organise new “meeting grounds” between the public administration and citizens. In addition,many political questions are becoming increasingly complex requiring expertise and technical insight.Examples of the many issues include ethics, research and development, environment and pollution. Forsuch issues, the challenge is to find methods and institutions that strike a balance between the expertknowledge necessary for guidance and the need for popular insight, understanding and control.

Public Involvement on Various Levels of Public Administration

System level and general framework

The Norwegian Constitution of 17 May 1814, is the general basis for the “basic freedoms”, and setsout rights to freedom of speech (§ 100), elections (§ 50), human rights (§ 110), freedom of religion (§ 2)and the right to work (§ 110).

The conditions for the involvement and input of citizens and users in matters of publicadministration are set out in a number of laws and acts of government, the most important of which are:

– Public Administration Act (10 February 1967): which establishes citizens’ rights to information,guidance and appeal.

– Freedom of Information Act (19 June 1970): setting out the rights of the public to acquaint themselveswith documents in a particular matter.

– Local Government Act (25 September 1992): on the organisation of municipalities and how thedifferent public bodies are supposed to operate, including electoral procedures.

– Gender Equality Act (9 June 1978): defining how public and private institutions are supposed to workto secure equal treatment of men and women.

– Planning and Building Act (14 June 1985): on the rights of the public to information and appeal inmatters regarding planning and building.

It is fair to say that the Public Administration Act should be considered as the most “basic” piece oflegislation, since it covers all aspects of public administration. However, according to the Norwegianlegal system, laws and regulations on special issues, in most cases, override more general laws as theyvery often show the intention of the lawmakers with regard to a special matter. In addition, more recentlaws override older laws whenever they are in conflict.

The present legal framework focuses mainly on information, legal rights concerning handlingprocesses and the right to appeal. Given the development of new democratic mechanisms, there is apossible need for the revisions of regulations in this field in the future. Such a possibility was discussedduring the establishment of the Local Government Act (25 September 1992), where it was debatedwhether it should provide for the more general use of referenda in Norway – an option which was not, inthe end, included in this act.

Consensus Conferences on Genetically Modified Food in Norway

225

© OECD 2001

Central government

The Programme for Innovation of the Public Sector

In October 2000, the Minister of Labour and Government Administration launched the “Programmefor Innovation of the Public Sector in Norway”. The process for renewing the public sector in Norwayplaces great emphasis on strengthening dialogue with the public regarding the production of publicservices. The “user orientation model” which underpins this programme may be regarded as a possiblelink between, on the one hand, feedback at the service delivery level, and on the other, citizenengagement in policy-making. (For more information on the Programme see http://odin.dep.no/aad/fornyelse/engl/index-b-n-a.html).

In the future, the focus of this process will be on what changes the public services should undertaketo meet the needs of the public. It is not difficult to predict a more frequent use of customer servicepanels, consensus conferences and systematic hearings, including the use of Internet.

That this “user orientation” may lead to “involving citizens” more generally is clear from fact thatwhen it comes to broad ethical questions, environmental issues and many other such matters suitablefor consensus conferences, we are, in one sense, all “users” because the decisions will affect us all.

One of the mainstays of the user orientation model is “to learn through contact with the users” asdescribed in the Budget Proposition to Parliament for 1999, which states that:

User orientation and service in the administration are not only a responsibility of those assigned the task of providing servicesor who have many individual users. State services and the execution of tasks are the final product of a vast number of individualdecisions which involve the participation of many institutions and levels in the administration. The Ministry therefore considersit important that ministries and directorates assume responsibility for the service they provide.

(Ministry of National Planning and Co-ordination, June 1997)

The central government Information Policy, presented to parliament in 1993, aims to:

– Ensure that each resident and enterprise has genuine access to information on public sectoractivities.

– Ensure that every resident is informed of his or her rights, obligations and opportunity toparticipate in the democratic process.

The communication principle implies that the administration and its users are regarded as equalpartners, who alternate as sender and receivers of information. It is not sufficient for the administrationmerely to send out information. The reactions of the public must also form the basis for systematicfeedback to the various levels of the administration. This principle places great demands on the flow ofinformation and on co-operation between different levels of the administration.

Government bodies and mechanisms for public involvement

Providing information to the public is the responsibility of each ministry, but is also supported bythe Norwegian Central Information Service, which is the central government administration’s specialistbody as far as information-related questions are concerned.

Three ministries have special responsibilities in the area of citizens’ rights in matters of publicadministration:

– The Ministry of Labour and Government Administration.

– The Ministry of Justice.

– The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (elections and the general co-ordination of municipal questions).

In addition we see that other ministries, such as the Ministry of Health and Social Services, tend touse such mechanisms as consensus conferences within different areas. However, these mechanisms donot generally include the use of laymen, possibly due a general scepticism on the part of the professionsand other experts.


226

© OECD 2001

Among the methods most frequently used by central government to obtain input and feedbackfrom citizens are opinion polls – although political parties, pressure groups and NGOs tend to makegreater use of such polls than do central government institutions. Several bodies of central government,especially directorates and other agencies, make frequent use of customer surveys. These surveysmainly concentrate on questions related to the quality of the service provided, and less on decision-making and policy-making.

Referenda have been used only to a very limited extent in Norway. However, the possibility ofmaking more general use of referenda has often been discussed. In recent times the only question to beput before the public in a referendum was the question of Norwegian membership of the EU in 1994.

Norwegian Central Government Institutions have also made only limited use of public hearings andconferences for the involvement of users or members of the public in the decision-making process.

The use of hearings is usually focused on “professional” bodies, not the general public. In additionto the Biotechnology Advisory Board and National Committees for Research Ethics which feature in thecase study, we note the use of consensus conferences within the following areas:

Youth Forum for Democracy: This forum works to further young people’s participation and influence onlocal development, and gives advice and input to public authorities on both the central and local levels.The forum itself has 16 members, aged between 15 and 26. Proposals and initiatives are submitted tothe Ministry of Children and Family Affairs.

Co-operation with user organisations and next-of-kin organisations: In 1998 a reference group was appointedconsisting of 6 user and next-of-kin organisations. The reference group meets 6 to 7 times a year. Theseparate organisations are invited to discuss questions selected by the reference group and the Ministryof Health and Social Affairs. Within the field covered by this ministry there is also an extensive use ofconsensus conferences, especially regarding different kinds of medical treatment.

The Norwegian Commission on Human Values: The commission was appointed by the government in 1998with a mandate to:

– Create increased consciousness about values and ethical problems.

– Contribute to an analysis of and increased knowledge about important human values and valuesconnected with the environment.

– Identify challenges as concerns the values and ethics of society, and discuss possible answers.

– Challenge in order to stimulate reflection and action.

The Ombudsman

Norway has a long tradition of using the institution of “Ombudsman” for different issues and areasof public administration:

– The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration (June 1962).

– The Consumer Council and The Consumer Ombudsman (June 1972).

– The Ombudsman for Children (March 1981).

– The Equal Status Ombudsman (June 1978).

The Council of the Elderly is not an “Ombudsman” in the strict sense, but has similar functions forthe protection of the rights of elderly people.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration is the only one to report directly to theStorting (parliament). The annual reports from this Ombudsman are often the basis for new laws andpolicy-making. In general, however, the Ombudsman provides ex post redress rather than an opportunityfor engaging citizens in ex ante policy-making.

To conclude, one might say that the Ombudsman institutions mentioned here are important for theprotection of people affected by decisions taken by the public administration, but that they havelimited impact on citizen involvement in the decision-making process.


227

© OECD 2001

Local community level

Municipalities in Norway regularly use different kinds of dialogue in the local decision-makingprocess. The following institutions and mechanisms are most frequent at the municipal level in Norway:

– Peoples’ Hearings (typically in the areas of health care, urban development, transport,environment).

– School Boards (involving pupils and parents).

– Councils for the Elderly (who often take part in discussions and decision making in issuesconcerning their living conditions).

– Local advisory referenda.

– Hearings organised as open informal meetings held at a number of places in the municipalities.

– Advisory committees where citizens are invited to provide input.

– Citizen and consumer surveys.

– “Open hour” or “The Mayor’s Bench”.

There are presently a number of other municipal pilot projects going on, focusing on differentmechanisms for involving users and members of the public. These pilot projects will be evaluatedduring 2001 by The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities.

There are few systematic mechanisms for transferring lessons learned to the national level, partlybecause the system of local democracy relies on each municipality to develop according to its ownpriorities, and partly due to the fact that questions regarding citizen-government relations do not seemto have fully matured in this country.

The use of new information and communication technologies (ICTs)

Electronic Government Action Plan (1999 – 2001) outlines the plan for “Cross-Sectoral Development ofInformation Technology in Central Government Administration”. The aim of this action plan is that “it willserve as a useful tool for the realisation of the Government’s main political goals, namely a simpler, moreopen and more user-friendly administration”.

Among the other policy goals to be mentioned are:

– The establishment of “One-stop-shops” or Government Service Offices in all municipalities.

– Introduction of Service Declarations on all Central Government services.

– Introduction of “24/7- government”.

– High-speed Internet connections to the public.

– The eNorway Action Plan.

There are good preconditions for strengthening government relations with the public via newinformation and communication technologies in Norway. Of a total population of 4.6 million, about 1.8 to2.0 million people (aged 13 years and over) have access to the Internet, while 500 000 people useInternet on a daily basis.

Access to the Internet is available in public libraries in over 70 per cent of Norwegian municipalities(316 of a total of 435) and in 15 per cent of the primary schools, 50 per cent of lower secondary schoolsand 90 per cent of secondary schools.

Public institutions have also established websites for information and discussions with the publicand use Internet to request comments, hold open meetings, and launch debate forums; conduct usersurveys and provide specialist information (e.g. on the environment, or for businesses). It is alsointeresting to note that some public committees use websites during the process of informationgathering and for the purpose of creating debate.

ICTs can contribute to strengthening the administration’s user orientation and capacity tocommunicate with citizens in a number of ways:


228

© OECD 2001

– Information: the Internet has given the public sector a new information channel to reach an evengreater share of the population. The channel provides new opportunities for alternative methodsof presenting and sorting information. This information channel will, however, initially supplementand not replace other forms of information distribution, so that the level of service offered tothose user groups that do not have access to this medium is not reduced.

– Communication: electronic communication has made possible more flexible and simpler forms ofinteraction between the administration and its users (with respect to both individuals andorganisations).

– Service delivery: ICTs provide new opportunities for a more user-oriented organisation andlocalisation of the administration’s service delivery, by reducing the significance of geography andorganisational location. The establishment of public service offices, where the administration’susers are given access to public services across the various agency borders and/or administrativelevels, is a good example of this.

The “user orientation model” should also contribute to establishing guidelines for the developmentand application of IT in the central government administration.

Overview of the Case Study

Background

The Biotechnology Advisory Board is an official independent advisory body appointed by thegovernment. The Board’s mandate covers biotechnology and gene technology in relation to humans,animals, plants and micro-organisms.

The Board evaluates principles and general issues in connection with activities in biotechnology,and puts forward proposals for ethical guidelines for such activities. It also makes recommendations incases that are dealt with under the Gene Technology Act and the Act Related to Application ofBiotechnology in Medicine. The Board is also charged with providing information to the general publicon biotechnology.

The decision to conduct a consensus conference was taken by the National Committees forResearch Ethics and the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board, which saw the need to include non-experts in order to obtain the views of ordinary people on the genetic modification of food.

The consensus conference was held from 18-21 October 1996. The laymen’s panel consisted of 16people, 8 men and 8 women, aged from 18 to 72, drawn from various parts of the country and withdifferent backgrounds. Members were not to have close links with occupations or organisations withestablished policies in this area. The aims of the panel’s work were: to give co-ordinated advice ongenetically modified food to politicians, authorities and the food industry; to establish a forum fordialogue between experts and non-experts; and to contribute to an all-embracing and well-informedpublic discussion of the subject.

The 1996 consensus conference was followed by a follow-up conference on the same subject, andwith the same panel, on 15 November 2000.

Organisation and process

Several public bodies, groups and individuals were involved in the organisation of the 1996consensus conference on the genetic modification of food – each with a distinct role.


229

© OECD 2001

Table 26. Key organisations in the 1996 consensus conference on the genetic modification of food

Organisation Role

Biotechnology Advisory Board Advising the government

Steering Group Conducting the conference

Project staff (3) Organising all practical matters

Professor Gunnar Handal Acting as facilitator for the process

Laymen’s Panel (16) Asking questions to the expert group and reporting to the Biotechnology Advisory Board

Expert Group (15) Giving answers to the questions posed by the panel

The preparation and implementation of the 1996 consensus conference took place in a number ofstages, which can be described as follows.

Table 27. Main stages in the 1996 consensus conference on the genetic modification of food

Stage of the process Date Activities

Steering group Early 1996 Establishing goalsand project staff established Describing the topic

Conducting the search process for members of the laymen’s panel

Search for laymen June 1996 Advertising in 10 newspapersConducting the selection process using a fixed list of criteria (16 out of the 400 people who expressed interest)

Preparation of the laymen August- Two weekend seminarspanel September 1996 Preparing questions for the experts

Guided by the facilitator

Choice of experts May – August 1996 Contacting 60 potential participants in the expert groupSelecting 15 (using a fixed list of criteria)

Preparation of experts 1-18 October 1996 Reading and preparing answers to questions posed by the panel

Day 1 (of the conference) 18 October 1996 20-minute lecture by each expert

Day 2 19 October 1996 Additional questions from the panel and from the audience

Day 3 20 October 1996 Panel works on their report

Day 4 21 October 1996 The panel presents the report

Final report December 1996 Media conferencesTV presentation

This was the first consensus conference with a laymen’s panel ever to be organised in Norway. Theconference built on the experience and used the same model as had been used in Denmark from theearly 1980s.

Evaluation

Review of the 1997 evaluation report

The 1996 consensus conference was evaluated by Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research andHigher Education (NIFU), an independent research institution, which submitted its report55 in April 1997.As a part of the evaluation all participants filled in a questionnaire. The evaluation focused primarily onthe organisation and the process itself, rather than on an assessment of the results or impacts of the 1996consensus conference.

The evaluation report used three main criteria for its evaluation, namely, to what extent has theconsensus conference contributed to:

– Recommendations based on consensus in the group.

– Dialogue between experts and non-experts.


230

© OECD 2001

– A broad and informed public debate.

The following excerpts from the executive summary of the 1997 evaluation report give a briefoverview of the main conclusions:

The conference has been given a good evaluation. It became a dialogue on the laymen’s terms, as was theintention. We have noted that the experts have been loyal to the list of questions from the laymen and that thepanel of laymen in their opinion got satisfactory answers. It was noted that there were good conditions for dialogue,and the role of the facilitator was especially underlined.

The conference resulted in a readable and structured report with consistent conclusions. Substantially thedocument is marked by the main conclusion that ‘there is no need for genetically modified food today’. Even if thelaymen’s panel focused mostly on the potential dangers, we have concluded that there had been a relativelybalanced discussion.

The final report has a technically broad scope, giving advice on the 8 main themes which should be addressed. Wehave concluded that it gives advice to all relevant target groups. The analysis is, naturally, not a deep andthorough one, given that the document was produced in the space of 36 hours. We have stated that the mostimportant value of the report is its function as a ‘problem catalogue’ – as an index of important aspects regardinggenetically modified food.

We have not noted much debate after the conference. There has, however, been considerable media interest –including around 70 press clips in newspapers and magazines. Considerable interest has also been noted in otherforums, such as ministries and parliamentary committees.

In reviewing some of the conclusions drawn by the 1997 evaluation report, the followingobservations may be made:

– The evaluation criteria, building on the targets of the conference, are complex and not easilymeasurable.

– The process is given a very positive evaluation by laymen, the facilitator and experts.

– Among the 13 experts interviewed 8 are positive and 3 (scientists) are negative with regard to thevalidity and the conclusions of the final report.

– There is an agreement among the laymen that the facilitator played a very important role inreaching agreement on conclusions.

The evaluation report did not assess what real impact this consensus conference had ongovernment decision-making on genetically modified food, and did not evaluate the costs of theconference, nor the benefits versus the costs.

Update on the November 2000 follow-up consensus conference

The issue of genetically modified food has recently re-emerged, notably with a parliamentarydebate in October 2000 on whether to establish a moratorium regarding genetically modified food. Therelevant committee in parliament voted on 20 October 2000 in favour of the principle of a moratorium,and sent the question back to the ministries concerned for further preparation.

In this context, the National Committees for Research Ethics and the Norwegian BiotechnologyAdvisory Board initiated and arranged an open meeting on the use of genetically modified food (heldon 15 and 16 November 2000 in Oslo) as a follow-up to the 1996 consensus conference.

The November 2000 conference had two main objectives:

– To summarise the development in research on genetically modified food since 1996.

– To discuss and conclude on whether there should be a moratorium on the use and import ofgenetically modified food.

The same laymen’s panel (15 of the original 16 members) was invited and posed questions to apanel of experts. This time the panel did not have any preparatory meetings. Written material was sent


231

© OECD 2001

to the laymen individually, for them to prepare questions to the experts. The answers to these questionsbecame the basis for the panel’s conclusion.

As a result of its deliberations, the laymen’s panel agreed on a memorandum which recommendedthat the Norwegian authorities establish a moratorium on genetically modified food. The memorandumwas made public with a press conference held on 16 November 2000.

The situation for many of the participants in the laymen’s panel has changed since 1996. As a resultof their participation in the panel of 1996, many of the members have developed a further interest in thetopic of genetically modified food. A follow-up conference using the same laymen therefore also builtupon information and opinions they had acquired since the 1996 consensus conference.

In its conclusions, the panel supported the establishment of a moratorium and set out theconditions that should be met before such a moratorium could be lifted, namely:

– The need for more knowledge to understand the long-term effects on environment and health.

– Co-ordination of laws and regulations (nationally and internationally).

– Strengthening of reviews, control and traceability.

The conference of 2000 was, in some ways, a mere replication of the 1996 consensus conference, butthe question at hand was mostly narrowed down to a discussion of, and recommendation on, whetherNorway should impose a moratorium on genetically modified food.56

Resources used in conducting the consensus conferences of 1996 and 2000

The total budget for the 1996 consensus conference was around NOK 1.1 million (137 500 euro) andwas financed by several ministries and public institutions, including: the National Committees forResearch Ethics; the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board; the Research Council of Norway; theMinistry of Fisheries; the Ministry of Agriculture; the Ministry of the Environment; the Ministry of Tradeand Industry; and the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.

The human resources engaged in preparing and conducting the 1996 consensus conferenceamounted to a total of 545 working days for project staff, laymen, experts and the facilitator.

Table 28. Human resources engaged in the 1996 consensusconference (in working days)

Participants Total number of working days

Project staff (3) 132 Facilitator (1): 33 Laymen’s Panel (16) 320 (20 days on average per layman) Expert Group (15) 60 (4 days on average per expert) TOTAL 545

The follow-up conference of November 2000, required considerably fewer resources, and wascompleted within the allocated budget of around NOK 300 000 (37,500 euro).

Assessing the impact of the 1996 and 2000 consensus conferences

It is difficult to assess the impact of the 1996 consensus conference on genetically modified food.As stated in the 1997 evaluation report, the conclusions of the consensus conference’s final report wererather “conservative”, and supportive of the official policy. It is possible that the impact wouldpotentially have been greater if conclusions had been more radical. The follow-up conference ofNovember 2000 has so far had limited effects other than getting the topic of genetic modification of foodback on the political agenda.

In terms of the direct impact of this instance of public consultation on decision-making, however, nodirect effects can be observed in the period 1996 to 2000. It remains to be seen whether the latestconference in November 2000 will influence the government, and subsequently the parliament, in its


232

© OECD 2001

decision to establish a moratorium. There would seem, however, to be a tendency within thegovernment administration to rely more on expert advice than on input received through moreinnovative public consultation mechanisms.

At the same time, one should not underestimate the potentially positive psychological impact onpublic opinion derived from the fact that Norwegian authorities took the initiative to involve laymen inthe decision-making process on a sensitive and complex issue of public policy.

Benefits

It would be fair to say that the most important benefit from these consensus conferences has beenin terms of their contribution to raising public awareness. In addition to around 100 press clips, theparticipants have been interviewed in 20 radio programmes, and the conference has been presented in4 television programmes. The same might be said for public authorities, given that the final report fromthe 1996 consensus conference was sent to all members of parliament and all Norwegian ministries.

Another obvious benefit from the 1996 consensus conference on genetically modified food lies inthe fact that it was the first pilot project to use this model of public participation in Norway. Followingit, a number of consensus conferences – especially within the field of medicine and technology – havesince been organised.

Whether this has led to more democratically responsive decisions is, however, difficult to assess. Asnoted above the debates and decisions in the Parliament were not co-ordinated with the conferences,but it is certain that the laymen’s report from the 1996 consensus conference was part of the material onwhich the parliament based its discussions of a moratorium in October 2000.

However, we observe that the different ministries working to prepare the final parliamentaryproceedings in the matter of genetically modified food tend to rely more on expert advice than on theconclusions from the consensus conferences.

Drawbacks

There are some drawbacks in this form of consultation and limitations to its use, several of whichare mentioned in the 1997 evaluation report and discussed more generally:

– First, the costs and human resources required are obvious obstacles to the widespread use of thismodel.

– Second, an emphasis on the need to reach consensus may benefit those who already have astrong opinion in the matter at hand, and may lead to a less open discussion than was intended.(In this context, it is interesting to note that the Dutch model of consensus conferences does notfocus on the need to reach consensus, but rather on discussing and presenting conflictingviewpoints.)

– Third, there is a danger that the facilitator will influence discussions and decisions more than isintended. This appeared not to be the case in this consensus conference, but makes the issue ofensuring the quality of the facilitator very important.

– Finally, the use of a laymen’s panel must not be seen as a substitute for other democraticprocesses, but rather as a supplement to them. A laymen’s panel can never be taken to be atotally representative group because the selection process itself (based as it is on volunteers)narrows participation down to people who show a special interest in the matter at hand.

Consensus conferences as a tool for public consultation

The development of consensus conferences can be witnessed in Norway, especially within the areaof science, health and medicine. They have also been used for some other issues, such as immigration,and on how to improve relations between different cultures in Norwegian society.


233

© OECD 2001

From 1996 there have been a number of conferences on the medical treatment of: depression bydoctors who are general practitioners; premature infants; diabetes; stroke patients; and the use ofamalgam in dental treatment.

The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs has in this respect established the use of consensusconferences as a permanent instrument, although these conferences seem to be more “user oriented”than “citizen oriented”. Indeed, in many of these areas there has been only very limited use of laymen(e.g. the conference on treatment of premature infants). Otherwise, these conferences have beenmeeting-grounds for experts, on questions with conflicting views within the expert community. (Thismodel of consensus conferences has also been referred to as “the American model”.)

The case chosen for this study reflects and underlines the need to balance different interests andviewpoints for issues characterised by:

– Significant complexity in both ethical and technical terms.

– The need for expert knowledge and introduction to allow laymen to form an opinion.

– A high level of media interest.

This case raises a number of general questions for consideration in the application of consensusconferences to other policy sectors and in different national contexts:

– How to achieve a balance between laymen and experts.

– The risk of being influenced by prejudice and media focus.

– Forcing experts to communicate and discuss.

The use of consensus conferences as a means of ensuring greater public input into policy-makingmay meet a number of obstacles (e.g. related to the legal framework or administrative culture) and havea number of implications (e.g. for traditional decision-making mechanisms).

There has been some discussion on which questions are suitable for the use of consensusconferences, both in the literature and following the 1996 consensus conference on genetically modifiedfood. The following recommendations have been developed by a Norwegian expert on this topic (Fixdal,1997):

– The topic must be on the political agenda and be of popular interest.

– There should be conflicting views among scientists or politicians (but perhaps not so controversialthat discussions in the panel probably end in conflicts).

– There should be sufficient scientific factual information to guide the laymen.

– There must be a good timing with regard to political decisions (and political will to use theinformation gained).

Future Perspectives

Identification of difficulties and barriers to be overcome

The 1996 consensus conference on genetically modified food was considered to be a success bothby participants and observers. The process was seen as positive and motivating and this kind ofconference appears to be well suited to issues within the area of health, medicine and technology.

If, however, we look at the broad picture of improving government-citizen connections, there aresome difficulties that have to be resolved before this kind of instrument will help to “revitalisedemocracy”:

– First, there needs to be a thorough discussion in the broader Norwegian political environment onhow citizens should be involved in decision-making processes.

– Second, there is a need to develop a more open-minded approach to decision-making within thepublic administration (ministries and directorates).


234

© OECD 2001

– Third, the use of consensus conferences needs to become more institutionalised and integratedinto the decision-making process.

In the light of experience in the use of consensus conferences to date, they do not appear torepresent a major contribution to the democratic process as a whole, but rather as a potentialsupplement to be used in relatively narrow technical fields.

Perspectives and challenges

It is generally agreed that Norwegian democracy (as in many other OECD Member countries) needsto be revitalised. The traditional parliamentary system built on participation through political partieshas experienced difficulties in reaching parts of the population. The use of consensus conferences andother such mechanisms may represent important supplements to traditional political processes.

However, the legal framework has not yet been modernised to cope with such developments. Thefocus in laws and regulations is more on rights of access to information and appeal than on publicinvolvement. On the other hand the new democratic instruments will only cover a small part of thepublic decision-making processes. Modernisation of the legal framework must also deal with thedifferent roles of the public – as clients, users and citizens.

In the future there will be a growing mixture of public, semi-public and private services in areas thatwere traditionally dominated by public services. This makes it even more important to revise the legalframework.

It may be expected that both the citizens and the users of public services will demand more insightand involvement in decision-making in the future. From the point of view of the citizen, this is necessaryto establish legitimacy for the use of public resources.

The conclusion is therefore that the use of consultation and the active involvement of citizens willincrease and spread into new policy areas over the next 5 to 10 years. During this period, Internet-basedtechnology will also dramatically change the possibility of, and practical means for, involving citizens.This will, in turn, raise questions on how such developments affect the ability of different groups insociety to participate in public policy-making.

Possibility for transfer of the consensus conference method

Consensus conferences are useful tools which may be used in all democratic countries that have aminimum of tradition and experience in involving individuals and groups other than experts in thedecision-making process. In countries lacking such a tradition, it may take more time to get used to theidea of involving laymen, as is also the case in Norway today in certain sensitive policy areas. Energypolicy is a case in point – plans for a consensus conference on the issue of “Energy production andenergy balance” were not carried out due in part to a change in government and to uncertainty amongcivil servants responsible for policy in this field.

There is little experience in Norway that provides the elements for evaluating the benefits and costsof consultation exercises, but as mentioned before many countries have tried different models ofconsensus conferences. Denmark was a pioneer in using this special method, and there are alsointeresting cases from the United States, Canada, Switzerland, United Kingdom, New Zealand andAustralia.


235

© OECD 2001

CONTACT LIST

The following people were most helpful in the researching and writing of this paper:

KAISER, Matthias – Director of the National Committees for Research Ethics (Chairman of the Steering Group)

HANDAL, Gunnar – Professor University of Oslo (Facilitator of the conferences of 1996 and 2000)

BJØRN, Øyvin – Advisor Ministry of Labour and Government Administration

MATHESON, Tone Elisabeth – Advisor Ministry of Health and Social Affairs

RIST, Ståle – Parliamentary Secretary Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament)


236

© OECD 2001

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FIXDAL J. (1997), Laymen conferences as technology assessment.

JAHNSEN T. (1998), Elektronisk demokrati – en interessant problemstilling (Electronic democracy – an interesting issue?(www.hiof.no).

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESEARCH ETHICS (1996), Fast salmon and technoburgers (Report from the consensus conference of 18-21 October 1996, Norway)(www.etikkom.no/NENT/fast.htm).

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR RESEARCH ETHICS (2000), Et skritt mot mer kunnskap (A step towards more knowledge) (Report from the follow-up conference ofNovember 2000, Norway) (www.etikkom.no).

NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN RESEARCH AND HIGHER EDUCATION (NIFU) (1997), Verneverdig eksperiment? (Evaluation report of the 1996 consensus conference), NIFU 5/1997(www.nifu.no/publikasjoner/1997.html).

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION (2000), Norway Country Factsheet 2000 (www.odin.dep.no).

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION, Program for Innovation of the Public Sector in Norway (www.odin.dep.no).

MINISTRY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (2000), eNorway Action Plan (www.enorge.dep.no).

SCHWEITZERISCHER WISSENSCHAFTS- UND TECHNOLOGIERAT (2000), “Konsens-Konferenzen über Genfood: Ist das PubliForum der Schweiz ein Sonderfall”, March, Bern.

SKIVENES E.O. and M.I. ERIKSEN (2000), Nye deltagelsesformer og demokratisk medvirkning (New forms of democratic involvement and participation),Bergen: LOS-Senteret (http://opal.los.uib.no/webrap.cfm).

THE NORWEGIAN ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES (www.ks.no).

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY (2000), Convening Consensus Conferences: A Practitioner’s Guide, August.


237

© OECD 2001

consensus conferences on genetically ... conferences on genetically modified food in norway by alf...

Documents